1988 PLP 274 (PLC)

‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Ex parte dismissal order‑‑Grievance petition dismissed by Labour Court‑‑Neither enquiry file nor Inquiry Officer produced before Labour Court‑‑Fact that petitioner worker did not avail of opportunities of personal hearing before employer, held, could not be a ground for disallowing his grievance petition‑girder of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition set aside and case remanded to Labour Court with direction that workman be given opportunity to call Inquiry Officer and to produce any other evidence to show that impugned dismissal order was not justified. M.A. Hamid Awan for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st December, 1987. The two appeals captioned above, which involve identical questions of fact and law and are, therefore, being disposed of together through this single judgment, arise from the ex parte decisions dated 29‑3‑1986, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for their re‑instatement in service, were dismissed ex parte.

2. In ex parte evidence the appellants appeared as their own witnesses and produced copies of the dismissal orders and copies of the grievance notices along with postal receipts. The ground on which the learned lower Court has dismissed the grievance petitions is that three opportunities were given to the appellants for personal hearing but they did not avail of them and failed to explain before the learned lower Court why they did not appear before the employer. It has also been observed by the learned lower Court that as admitted by the appellants, the factory is lying closed for two years.

3. The fact that the appellants did not avail of the opportunities of personal hearing could not be a ground for disallowing their grievance petitions. Both the appellants deposed that they were not afforded opportunity to defend themselves. If the learned lower Court was not satisfied with this deposition of the appellants, it could have insisted upon the production of inquiry file. It was also the duty of the appellants to summon the inquiry file and the Inquiry officer since the cases were proceeding ex parte but they too did not display sufficient vigilance. It has been said by the learned counsel for the appellants that the proprietors of the respondent mills have absconded and the factory has been brought under liquidation, therefore, it is not possible to summon the inquiry file. So far as the examination of the Inquiry Officer is concerned, he says that his whereabouts are not known. I am afraid there is nothing on the record to show that the proprietors have absconded, that the record is not traceable and that the whereabouts of the inquiry officer are not known. If attempt had been made and the appellants had failed, of course it could be argued that whatever was possible was done. Even the charge sheets and the inquiry notices served upon the appellants have not been brought on the record, with the result that this is not known what were the allegations against them.

4. As a result, the appeals are accepted and setting aside tile impugned decisions of the learned lower Court, the cases are remanded with the direction that the appellants be given opportunity to call B the inquiry officer and the inquiry file. The appellants may produce some other kind of evidence as well to show that without any justification they were removed from service. A.E./ 256/ Lb.p